Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

CH wrote the above not long ago to describe the purpose, in practice if not specifically elucidated in theory, of feminism. But what is the emotional impetus that motivates feminists? For that, we must dig deeper. Come out and plaaay, little id.

One, feminism is a hissy fit ugly women menstruate all over pretty women.

According to Benenson, a common way women deal with the threat represented by a remarkably powerful or beautiful woman is by insisting on standards of equality, uniformity, and sharing for all the women in the group and making these attributes the normative requirements of proper femininity.

Two, feminism is the revealed hatred that sexually undesirable women have for male sexuality. Feminists loathe male desire. They loathe it because it represents everything female sexuality is not — free, idealistic, romantic, reckless, unencumbered, insistent, bold, cheerful — and because the active and intrusive and JUDGMENTAL nature of male sexuality throws the physical desirability of women into stark relief. When a man ignores you to hit on your friend, that is as stone cold a judgment of your sexual worth as can be found in the state of nature. When a man can’t get a boner for a woman, well, that’s an event horizon rejection.

Evidence for feminist loathing of male desire comes distilled in this news story about a post-Lolita who was asked to change out of her Daisy Dukes because she was violating the school dress code. The Hivemind, as per usual, lined up behind (heh) the slutty attention whore to, essentially, denounce boys for having sex drives which compel them to furtively glance at barely concealed booty and get distracted from their schoolwork.

As commenter PA writes,

High school girl protests slutty clothes uniform code. Says that boys should be instructed to not look to them sexually instead. Adults, including major media, validate girl’s queef.

The more I see of modern West in its ugly and moronic totality, the more life behind the Iron Curtain in the seventies looked like paradise in comparison.

A healthy, rational, and sane society that was at peace with itself would understand that men and women have different biologically based sex drives, and that it would be cruel to subject boys, or girls, to social disruptions and insults that unnecessarily and extravagantly torment them and pull them away from their learning. (CH PSA: Bring back single sex schooling.)

But we don’t live in a sane country anymore. This sort of boy-bashing is not just ugly…. as Dalrymple said, it’s humiliating. If you aren’t on your knees in prostration kissing the feet of equalist priestesses, you just aren’t submitting hard enough.

To compound the problem, the nature of men’s sexuality is such that it’s easier for leftoid propagandists to humiliate them. Men rely on visual cues for sexual stimulation. It’s thus a simple matter to chastise men for their “leering objectification” and “contribution to rape culture” when they understandably gawk at scantily clad temptresses, and to then demand from men the Danegeld of self-abnegation. Call it the Danegelding.

But demanding the same humiliating abnegation from women, should our Hivemind queen bitches ever contemplate it, proves much more daunting. Women are sexually stimulated by a constellation of male attributes, many of which are invisible to the naked eye — male personality, humor, wealth, popularity, skill, etc — so isolating and condemning “female sexual privilege” or female “contribution to hypergamy culture” is a conveniently impossible trick to pull off. Where to aim? At doe-eyed girls doing the homework of dreamy jerkboys?

A sex equivalent scenario would be hard to piece together. Perhaps air drop a rock star into a high school classroom and tell the girls on threat of expulsion to refrain from gawking at him or giggling uncontrollably when he smiles? Crisis and observation, a wag might call it. Or, what’s good for the goose…

Look around and you can’t help but notice it’s feminist metaphorical guns at boys’ heads and groins, now and forever. And their firepower increases by the day.

The modern West deserves nothing less than exhaustion and death. Suffrage was a fucking huge mistake.

 

Read Full Post »

Via Leopard of the Blogosphere, a Salon article written by a woman about all the six figure techie beta male nerds moving to Seattle to work for Amazon and how this massive influx of single, well-off, and available men is doing nothing to spice up the dating market for women.

Why were they so awful? What was it about guys who work in tech that made them worse than lawyers or other white-collar industries?

In a way they exhibit some of the same qualities of those professions—ego, arrogance, and unlimited amounts of cash. In San Francisco, said Violet, “There were a lot of men to date with disposable income who wanted to take women out. It’s just, it was so boring,” she said. “My dating life went from dating artists and writers and going on cheap but exciting dates, to men who thought the ability to buy someone an expensive meal made them interesting.”

Violet is like many young, prime nubility women — a cheap date with a man who has that ineffable alpha attitude is far more intoxicating to them than is an expensive date with a beta male who plays by the traditional courtship rules.

The choice is simple: You can pay $150 for a nice dinner for two in a pricey SWPL enclave and pull her chair out like a gentleman while flashing your Amazon employee card, or you can meet at a dive club and pound $3 PBRs while asking her if she ever pervily listened in on a roommate having sex. Option one guarantees gloomy late night batin’. Option two gets you laid.

Beta males bring two things to the table that enable them, in however limited a capacity, to compete with alpha males: Their provisions and their dependability. But as we are seeing, modern women have begun to value both of those things far less than they used to. A beta male who thinks that making beaucoup bucks and showing a lady a fine time on his dime will arouse her to sexual receptivity simply has no concept of female sexual nature. His money won’t save him. He needs an attitude adjustment, and a better idea of the sorts of conversations and activities that women love.

The beta male torrent is so bad in Seattle that the local women are going to gay bars to avoid them and get their fun drama fix.

The problem has become pervasive enough in Seattle that when I went with a few girlfriends to Pony, one of the last true gay bars on Capitol Hill, I was shocked when I found out that the adorable pair of 25-year-old boys talking to us were heterosexual. They were there because—as one of them told us—”It was the only place on the Hill on the weekends where there are no bros.”

Beta males are so unattractive to women that they are not only being outcompeted by alpha males, but also by gay males who have no interest in sex with women. Women would rather do away with the prospect of sex in exchange for a fun time with a gay man who “gets it”, than endure a single boring date with a rich beta male who can give them a life of ease and luxury.

Read Full Post »

Steve Sailer links to Ann Hornaday’s Washington Post article where she attempts, in the typical square axe-round hole grinding feminist fashion, to blame Elliot Rodger’s shooting spree on “frat boy” movies made by white men.

The premise is so conspicuously self-refuting (and conveniently unfalsifiable) that Steve decides a pregnant “uh…” is all the rebuttal that’s needed. The first commenter, though, adds a little zest to the national discourse.

But Ann, what about a film like “Something’s Gotta Give,” where 50-ish women with no curves are told the hot young doctor’s going to fall in love with them? Is it possible that when this doesn’t happen in real life, women act out by supporting all manner of political causes inimical to the interests of the straight white men who spurn them? Hmmm?

Shiv status: To the bone.

Another commenter unsheathed his serrated blade and attacked her vulnerable anti-white status whoring flank.

So…start with a conclusion (White males are to blame) and then fill in behind it.

Soon we can mechanize/computerize this process and save some wage cost. The out of work pundits can then pick lettuce and eat beans.

We can dream.

Steve is a nice guy, and quite frankly the developed world needs more fearless nice guys like him who appear to be getting rarer by the day. But, I’m not a nice guy, so I’ll give Hornaday the reply she deserves.

Ann, you are a foul, despicable feminist cunt. Your ideology is the stale, safe haven of rejects, defectives, losers, race cuckolds, dweebs, and sexually confused degenerate freaks. Your time is over. Hope this hurts.

Read Full Post »

You may not think a study of social spiders would have anything to say about such disparate topics as racial diversity and pickup, but that’s just because you haven’t taken a fistful of shrooms and gone on a vision quest.

…these oddball spider socialites may offer fresh insight into an array of human mysteries: where our personalities come from, why some people can’t open their mouths at a party while others can’t keep theirs shut and, why, no matter our age, we can’t seem to leave high school behind. [...]

[Researchers] have determined that character-building in social spiders is a communal affair. While they quickly display the first glimmerings of a basic predisposition — a relative tendency toward shyness or boldness, tetchiness or docility — that personality is then powerfully influenced by the other spiders in the group.

In laboratory experiments, the researchers showed that spiders exposed to the same group day after day developed stronger and more distinctive personalities than those that were shifted from one set of spiders to the next. Moreover, the spiders in a stable social setting grew ever less like one another over time.

In other words, far from fostering behavioral conformity, a predictable social life accentuated each spider’s quirks and personal style, rather as the characters in a sitcom — the Goth girl, the huckster, the lovable buffoon — rise ever more to type with every passing laugh-tracked week.

“The longer the spiders were with the same individuals, the stronger their personalities became, and the more different they became from each other,” Dr. Pruitt said. “The aggressive ones became much more aggressive, the docile ones more docile.” The consistency of their behaviors also mounted with time, he said, “to the point where they seemed almost rigid.”

As most readers are here to learn how better to attract women in a world gone mad, the story within this story is what group familiarity and uniformity say about your chances to escape your beta box, (or, conversely, to exploit your alpha cred).

Summarizing, a lack of inter-group diversity (say, growing up in an idyllic all-white suburb where Rush blasted from angst-y teen bedrooms) actually increases individual diversity, through the mechanism of amplifying preexisting personality differences among same-group members. In contrast, a lot of inter-group diversity (say, moving to a SWPL hipster enclave in a minority white city soaked in vibrancy that makes daily living an adventure in survival) produces a uniformity of thought and, CH will note, of aesthetic within groups, which is why we see SWPL hoods in nearly every major American city converging on the same farm-to-table Obama-loving liberal hypocrite norm.

Paradoxically, group cohesiveness creates more individual diversity, while inter-group diversity creates more intra-group uniformity. Diversity + proximity = conformity.

In other words, the diversity that really matters — diversity of thought and personality — flourishes in less racially diverse environs.

That’s the diversity angle of this spider study, What about the game angle?

Equally dramatic was the impact of social conditions on the boldness test. Stable spider groups, composed of six spiders that remained together for up to four weeks, showed the greatest variety between individuals, the greatest mix of bold and shy, as well as the highest individual consistency: The pebble-playing times of the boldies grew shorter while those of the timids lengthened.

Among shifting spider groups, by contrast, the boldness scores proved far less predictable, as though the spiders didn’t quite know what was expected of them. [...]

Alison M. Bell, who studies stickleback personality at the University of Illinois, says the spider work neatly illustrates the mix of plasticity and predilection that underlies personality.

“I think it’s such an appealing idea that social interactions could cause social niches, and it resonates with our own experience as humans,” she said. “When you go into a group, your behavior changes depending on the nature of that group, but it can only change so far.”

Yet so long. Soon after getting results from the experiments, Dr. Laskowski met with a group of friends she hadn’t seen since graduating from high school a decade earlier.

“All of a sudden I’m high-school Kate again,” she said. “Just being in that social environment completely reinforced my old behaviors. It was my social niche, that’s what I felt.”

Your identity can be altered by removing (or removing yourself from) social dynamics that reinforce your old identity. Personality is part predilection, part plasticity (ratios subject to debate), and what this spider study hints at is that if you are a docile beta male who wants to inject some alpha characteristics into your behavioral regime, you can move the needle on your suite of personality traits by getting the hell away from stale social settings in which you are known as the niceguy who doesn’t pick up women.

For some men, this won’t be news. Many a former beta male has testified to social and sexual success that accrued after he left his comfortable social circle, or his hometown, for strange new lands and new friends who didn’t know of his past nature. Like the rattled spiders who got confused when their social landscape shifted, the beta male will be able to more easily experiment with bold alpha moves in a new environment filled with new people who haven’t yet pigeonholed him. Additionally, the alpha males who luxuriated in the rewards that familiar people’s expectations granted them will be less bold in new environments, thus paving a path for uppity beta males to exploit the slick seducer niche.

Read Full Post »

The subject of hugs as a social lubricant surfaced recently in the comments. Before continuing, I’ll say that hugs as a tactile ploy to quickly escalate physical comfort with a girl is an entirely different matter than hugs as they are used by girls when meeting friends or even loosely affiliated acquaintances. The former is an established game technique; the latter is, well… emasculating.

Gadfly Amy writes,

This is an interesting observation. I hug people all the time, and you are right, the “alpha” guys don’t really hug back. They don’t freeze up and act uncomfortable or nervous… they just don’t physically react. They make me do the work.

Hugging is all the rage in SWPL-land. And it’s something I could do without. But some social forces are so deeply ingrained that even the mighty iconoclast you know and luv, Highlander Heartiste, must bend to the will of the herd.

Although hugging is a great kino escalation tactic, in nearly every other context it’s phony and suspiciously emasculating. People (mostly women) feel the pressure to hug, and like lemmings they dive right over the personal space cliff to hug everybody from exes to bosses to friends of friends to friends of friends of boss exes. Whatever import accompanied the practice has long ago been stripped mined from it by perfunctory overuse.

Hugging is Depo-Provera for the Androgyne Generation. It’s the final snippity snip of soft castration for men whose testes are already halfway ascended to their diaphragms. It’s a comforting boundary in a world of hair-trigger offense, and a reprieve from busting a move to get the girl.

Hyperbole? Ok, try imagining Don Draper hugging Peggy or Joan or his secretary du jour every time they got together at a party. Try picturing James Bond hugging a woman he had no intention of seducing into bed. Try imagining your father, or your grandfather, or this guy, asexually hugging women at a backyard barbeque.

It is to laugh.

Fact: If you aren’t initiating hugs to fast-track a familiarity that can be leveraged into quick seductions, or you aren’t hugging a girl as post-coital homage to her bedside acrobatics or sympathy for her dead grandma, then the hug you are receiving is beta.

Naturally, if I have to put up with hugging I’m gonna press in real close if the hugger is a cute girl with a big rack. That’s called making smoosh juice out of lemons. And lemons it is, because hugging, besides feeling like a coerced gesture to which one submissively relents, is in most ways subtly desexualizing. I don’t know when or how the practice got to be the go-to social greeting among self-regarding liberal whites (aka alien grays), but I’ve no doubt that many women now deploy it as a means of preemptively dissipating any simmering sexual energy that might radiate from a man who still has stones knocking between his legs.

In some cases, the sexual energy she subconsciously seeks to dissipate is her own. Which is flattering to the man, until he stops to think that the hug is basically the girl pulling a Heisman on him.

Exceptions exist. Hugging is occasionally an overt come-on by a girl who wants to communicate her sexual intent using tools deemed safe and plausibly deniable by broad social acceptance. If you can tell that’s happening to you, then by all means welcome that hug and let your hand drop to the top of her ass.

But more often, hugging is a female power move to claim control of a man’s beastly sexuality. It’s emasculating in the sense that the hugger feels so at ease in your company, so blissfully unthreatened by your percolating sexuality, that she can swoop right into your flaccid body and press her supple flesh into your spirit house. Not in your house? Oh yes, in your house.

The female hug is a nonverbal message delivery vehicle. It can say “Wow, I like this guy and just want to feel his strong swaying manboobs”, or, more typically for your average SWPL betaboy who must entertain upwards of ten friendzone hugs per day, it says, “Wow, this guy is such a team player, but just in case he’s got life left in that microbone of his, I’m gonna arouse him with the proximity of my body and drink of his nourishing despair as he realizes the extent of his paralyzed impotence.”

You don’t want to be that guy. But what to do when the world is hug-happy and refusal would assuredly consign you to the disinvite list?

Based on what I’ve seen charming alphas do, there are two effective countermeasures. One, you can do as Amy observed, and let your body hang in languid repose, forcing the girl by your inaction to assume all the sexual pre-penetrative tension that is always bubbling not far underneath the polite veneer of a hug. Call it, “amused receivership”. The trick is to substitute calm indifference for rigid discomfort. Done right, it’s a great way to non-verbally wedge a girl into the “chaser” role. She’ll feel like she’s doing all the work, so you as a man must be worth it.

The other method requires a more cantankerous personality. When she moves in for the hug, agree and amplify. As she’s hugging, let your hands roam over her back and hips. Exaggerate your pleasure for the entertainment of the crowd or for your own amusement. Smile like you’re getting a hummer and press harder into her. Moan a little. Sexualize the hug. Accuse her of copping a cheap feel, or making you feel dirty. Force her world to accommodate your insolent penile aura. She’ll either be aroused by your manly effrontery and begin to contemplate unclothed transactions with you, or she’ll be thrown into a state of perturbation and think twice before hugboxing you again as if you were a little eunuch doll.

Either way, you win. If the second method should scandalize the gathered, prep them with a clownish attitude. This way there’s less chance they’ll mistake your gropings for anything but physical humor. If she, or her friends, really chafe at your impudence, you shouldn’t be hanging with such uptight pussies anyhow.

Amy continues,

How do your girl friends greet you, then? How do you expect/want them to greet you?

I don’t press up against guys when I hug them, it’s a greeting type hug, quick, and I usually kiss them on the cheek. The only exception is if I’m really glad to see them for a specific reason, i.e. the other night I saw a friend of mine who just recovered from a freak illness that almost killed him. I was so happy to see him out and looking healthy that I hugged him hard. But I don’t think anyone would confuse that with a sexual advance.

You underestimate the proclivity of men to interpret all variety of female attention as a cry for copulation. But to your question, long-time close girl friends I have no intention of fucking may get a hug now and then. Mostly though, there is a tacit understanding that it’s cool to get together without having to grease the friendship wheel with gobs of histrionic symbols of affection.

The French have it right, like they do in so many matters of intersex politesse. If you must have a physical greeting with women you aren’t fucking, the lean in, arm grab, and air kiss on the cheek is sufficient. Otherwise, just chill and go for the high five, pulling away at the last second leaving her hand flapping in empty air, after which you execute the “who’s gay” finishing move.

Failing that, there’s always the fist bump, a gesture which ironically works a lot better to establish your alluring dominance when used on girls than on male friends.

Read Full Post »

Amish Facebook

Commenter “The Burninator” muses about what an Amish Facebook page would look like.

I can’t imagine an Amish girl’s FB page.

Her:

“Today I churned butter with mama.”

Like 1

Amish father:

“Get back to work, girl!”

Like 124

:lol:

You have to hand it to the Amish. They have the preternatural ability to avoid corruption by the pozzed American dysculture while living in the belly of the beast. Part of the reason is the “boiling off” selection effect that results from their rite of passage known as Rumspringa, which assures that the Amish left in the community evolve the personality traits to successfully deter outside influence.

Another reason has to be hard work. Toiling in the fields or the farmhouse tires a body and mind so thoroughly that social media distractions become less tempting. The Amish are preoccupied with survival and community. The non-Amish are preoccupied with white privilege and gay weddings.

Read Full Post »

RooshV writes,

I went out with my friend on a Friday night, ready to put in work, and this is what I was greeted with instead in multiple bars:

what we have here… is an unfavorable ratio

Severely skewed sex ratios will affect your game. If a bar is 80% men-20% women, that means on average each woman got ego-fluffed by three men before you approached her. You are therefore attempting to open a line of loving communication with a female ego four times as large as it would be in a normal state of nature. That’s an uphill battle, folks. Throw in the expanding and waddling mass of fat chicks, and that 4-to-1 ego-fluffing ratio could jump as high as 8-to-1.

This is why night game is dying. The ratios suck. Either men are restricting their pussy trawling to the night alone, or women are abandoning night venues in droves. Add the demographic cratering of marriage leaving too many single men who lack the creativity and balls to day game descending on bars like migrating wildebeests to watering holes and you’ve got what you see above. Weekend day game, (or weeknight evening game), if nothing else, has the powerful advantage of a sex ratio that more closely aligns with a natural 50-50 split.

On Saturday night I was called the following by four women:

-shady (girl 1)
-douchebag (girl 2)
-creep (girl 2)
-disrespectful (girl 3, girl 4)
-asshole (girl 3)
-dick (girl 4)
-weird (girl 2)
-“I don’t like you” (girl 2)

One girl from the above gave me her number and the other took me to her place.

What a bizarro world for girls to call you names but actually like you.

Despite the horrible ratios, night game still retains one benefit that’s hard to acquire in day game: In nighttime venues, girls respond better to jerkboy charisma, and your odds of closing the deal in the same window of time that you opened the deal are higher. In contrast, it’s advantageous to soft-shoe your jerkitude and cloak your message when you meet girls under the harsh glare of sunlight. But at least you’re not hobbled by beer goggles, dim lighting, or Michelin Woman egos. You can be confident that the girl you meet during the day will look almost as pretty the next morning.

Read Full Post »

The defensive crouch is where female tingles are born; it’s also where leftoids are stillborn.

Mangan posted a link to a news story about Sweden acting to criminalize criticism of immigration. A commenter pointed out that the story was likely false, a misreading of the original story.

Naturally, the premise — that Swedish authorities would seek to criminalize speech to spare the feelings of the orc horde — is totally plausible, given that a number of EU countries have taken measures in recent years to do just that. But the false lede plants mischievous thoughts in the supersexy noggin of CH.

It’s no secret the forces of Light have no game in the social or political arenas. They mewl and pout and me-too and, when the heat comes around the corner, bend all the way over in impotent submission. They cede ground to the enemy like a public pool clearing out when a floating turd is spotted. At their worst, they are contemptible.

Any anti-leftoid strategy has to start with the concept of reframing. Once a leftoid has established the frame, you are not likely to get out of it without knowledge of frame-busting techniques. Therefore, you want to engage the leftoid with your own frame, because as adept as leftoids are at setting frame, they are incompetent at dodging strong frames which are used against them.

The false Sweden story shows how to do this. Accuse leftoid elites, in the style of “fake but accurate” reporting, of silencing dissent, and working behind the scenes to make laws that criminalize free speech. True or not, the leftoid will be cornered into spending valuable mental and emotional capital defending himself from the charge. Semantically weakened, the leftoid is exposed to more dangerous ideological attacks that he would in an otherwise more commanding position be able to wave off with empty slander that vibrates the vulvae of his mirin’ masses. You then outflank your enfeebled foe: “Oh, so you’re not actively trying to suppress free speech at the moment? Then you wouldn’t send to jail anyone talking about non-white immigration to historically white nations?”

Another example of frame stealing is jacking up the minimum wage well beyond what Democrats are willing to contemplate. This strikes at two weaknesses in the enemy: his liberal lifestyle hypocrisy and his “conservative” concubinage to deracinated big business.

You don’t fight an enemy at the peak of his power with squirt guns. You open the silos and launch interpsychosocial hell.

Read Full Post »

A cat cafe opened in New York to great fanfare, and female lawyers (genus: lawyercunt) may be on the way out as a member of the human species.

The latter assertion gets a boost from ❤️science❤️ recently with a new study which found that stressed out women have a harder time getting pregnant.

Stressed out women have more difficulty getting pregnant than women with less stress, according to a new study this week in the journal Human Reproduction.

Although the relationship between stress and trouble getting pregnant has been hinted at before, it had never been scientifically proven before now. This new research marks the first time that scientists have found a direct link between stress and infertility. [...]

In a study that followed more than 400 women just as they were starting to try to get pregnant, the researchers found that women with the highest levels of the stress indicator alpha-amylase in their saliva were 29% less likely to get pregnant than women with the lowest levels.

They also found that women with the highest levels of alpha-amylase were more than twice as likely to meet the clinical definition of infertility–meaning they did not get pregnant even after a full year of trying.

Law is a stressful field. Hopefully the hordes of unfeminine, ballcutting manjaws who streamed into law schools the past thirty years will see their genetic lineages go the way of the dinosaurs.

Thankfully, a barren womb isn’t necessarily an inactive womb! Lawyer chicks can still serve as great pump and dump adventures.

The researchers still do not understand exactly why stress affects a woman’s ability to become pregnant, but this study did rule out some possibilities. For example, they found women with high levels of alpha-amylase had the same amount of sex as some of their less-stressed counterparts. “It’s not that stressed out women have less intercourse,” she said.

They also found no correlation between high levels of alpha-amylase and ovulation problems.

One theory the researchers plan to explore in future studies is whether stress changes what Lynch called “the hormonal milieu” of the uterus in such a way that it becomes inhospitable to implantation.

The god of biomechanics doesn’t care how many degrees you have or which firm’s dick you suck if you haven’t fulfilled your prime directive as a woman.

Read Full Post »

As reported by NPR (I’m sure with gritted teeth), a Pew Study finds

that the milliennial generation has a low level of social trust. There are several possible causes for this distrust, including a skewed social media culture and a faltering economy. [...]

One explanation for this, the study suggests, is growing racial diversity – 43 percent of millennial adults are non-white, making this the most diverse generation in America.

Holy macaroni! Is the SPWL stronghold of NPR about to grapple with the CH aphorism “diversity + proximity = war“?

She says, minority groups have long had low levels of social trust.

CAMILLE LEAK: I think that, ultimately, it stems from their history of having to deal with persecution and discrimination, whether in their personal lives or within the business setting. [...]

Leak suggests that the Internet itself is another reason millennials are so distrustful.

LEAK: I mean, there’s a reason why catfish is now a verb.

Ah, no. This being NPR, leftoid headquarters, the bleeding obvious escapes them. Social distrust can’t be up because diversity is making the full court press and severing ethnocentric communal bonds. No no, it has to be white privilege, persecution, or the internet. Hey guess what? I’ll add another theory to the mix that’s no less nebulous and unfalsifiable than the catch-all assertion of white privilege: Dissembling media leftoids are causing the rise in social distrust.

So who’s the one in five that says, yeah, people can be trusted? Sara Bakken’s one of them. She lives in South Dakota. She says, if she were to meet someone on the street, chances are, she could trust them.

South Dakota is 84% white, 21% higher than the national average.

Camille Leak says, low levels of social trust shouldn’t be mistaken for a pessimistic world view.

LEAK: It’s just being savvy and being realistic, and I think that’s what it is for a lot of millennials. It’s not about being optimistic or pessimistic. It’s about being realistic.

Do Millennials strike you as hard-headed realists? Maybe they are when they aren’t whining about microaggressions or the patriarchy or extolling the artistry of anime.

Despite this lack of trust, the study says, the millennial generation is the most upbeat about the future of the country.

“The basis of optimism is sheer terror.”
– Oscar Wilde

There was one other interesting tidbit to come out of the study:

Within the millennial generation in particular, multicultural consumers have a much higher level of influence on their non-Hispanic white counterparts. So we’re seeing that even outside of areas like trust, non-Hispanic white millennials have begun to adopt certain multicultural [sic] behaviors or characteristics.

Translation: A drop of wine into sewage makes sewage. A drop of sewage into wine makes sewage.

Diversity + proximity = war. Keep saying it leftoids, until your heads explode scanners-style.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,967 other followers

%d bloggers like this: